I wanted to give a quick update and let everyone know that I was incorrect and that it will only go up to 30 caliber bullets. He may offer something for larger calibers in the future which is why I was originally confused.
I have no problem measuring with the Hornady bullet comparator tool verses the dial gauge set up. If the measurements come out different with the Hornady comparator then it's not being used right. I check the bullets themselves to make sure they measure at the ogive to the base, the same. If the Hornady comparator measures differently, then that's where it's being inconsistent. My COAL are consistent with the comparator.
I just started to sort my bullets prior to loading with my comparator. ( Im new to precision rifle loading) huge difference in my final seating measurements. Much more consistent, much happier while at my bench. Now, to fix my eyesight....👍
G'day John, you got me to thinking about that new seating depth comparator. Anyhow, I went through all the implications I could think of &, came up with a modified bullet seating method to take full advantage of that gauge & seating depth repeatability improvements. All the bullet seating dies available are set up & physically use the rim/base of the case with no reference to the datum. If we could seat with reference to the datum, we could eliminate the variance of the datum point. This can in fact be achieved with the use of L.E Wilson dies by 1) placing a thin washer (1mm) in the base cap of the die or 2) cutting a relief of 5mm width x 1mm depth in the base cap of the die. Using either of these 2 methods will cause the die to rest upon the case which, forces the datum of the case hard against the datum of the die. Since the datum of the die is a fixed point in relation to the seating stem, the case datum will then be fixed with reference to the stem allowing the cartridge base to float. Since we know that when the firing pin strikes the primer, the cartridge is hammered hard against the datum of the chamber &, where initial bullet release takes place, it is logical to measure & seat with reference to the case datum. My eldest Son is a fitter & turner & I have given him one of my Wilson die base to modify with reference to # 2 mentioned above. Thought I'd mention this in the hope that you may feel this seating method worth testing & trialling in your F-class rifles. I will of course be testing this however, I don't have the depth comparator gauge yet or, a custom rifle to verify the efficacy. I hope you realise that, this could be a turning point in the bullet seating method for F-class & bench rest shooters. Although I am the brains, you will be the 1st to utilise this new method thus, making you more betterer than Eric Cortina & even Lou Murdica. Now I know you'll do it. Kind Regards..........Rotas
If your die is pressing the shoulder to base, then measuring from base to ogive should be the same as measuring shoulder to ogive. However, it could change depending how much die wax there was on the shoulder while pressing. A variable to consider.
My only concern is variation between this tool and your seating die. The seating die is going to contact the bullet in a different spot than the comparator. You may have a batch of bullets that have zero variation where your seater touches them, but this touches the bullet further up the ogive, and could show different variation.
I have found the same to be true. From what I've observed is that neither COAL or CBTO measurements are exactly precise. What I have found is that if you measure the distance from bullet base to seating die POI, you get constant measurements evert single time. This means, in my understanding, that the bullet is then seated into the case exacty the same depth which allows for consistant start-up pressure, more consistant powder ignition and ultimately, less ES. My recent test showed that I only had an 0.004 variance in ogive measurements, which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. It's about the same as 3 hair strands (yes, I physically conducted that test on myself😂). As Eric Cortina rightfully said, if you're clearing the lands by 0.020", you're not in jam. So by my thought, 0.004" variance from longest to shortest ogive measurement really doesn't matter. You're clearing the lands. However, I will say that bullet sorting does have it's place because you find a median in every batch with a couple of odds balls here and there. So I (OCD as I am) will still sort bullets according to bullet OAL and bullet BTO measurements because I shoot from a magazine shorter than my chamber length. I determine my internal seating depth by taking the longest bullet OAL and adding the length of my cartridge case to get a max. length, then deduct the max. length available from my magazine. Then I have my starting depth. I then seat all my bullets at that point. I then sort all bullets with the same ogive measurements and then shoot the odd balls out in ladder tests or as barrel foulers and keep the median as my "go-to" rounds. I am then able to have consistant internal seating depths as well as consistant CBTO measurements with the lowest possible ES and SD as I can get. By that means, I eliminate all possibilities for the shooter (me😂) to blame the gun or the ammo for his 10" groups at a 100 yards😂😂 (jokes)
For sorting bullets or setting up brass, you need the caliper-based tools. For checking loaded ammo, this one is the way to go! So I say, get them both. But not the crappy Hornady comparators, get quality tools like the Short Action Customs comparator set or the Forster Datum Dial.
Love all of your videos thank you for your timeout this one was just a bit rushed I felt.I ALMOST got it.Would love to see a rearview in the future with a slower more deliberate approach.........Please.
I don't get it. If it does in fact measure from the ogive, how can the indicator tip *not* be caliber specific? It must just have an arbitrary size opening which contacts the bullet *somewhere* and the indicator reading would be relative to that same spot on the reference bullet that was used to zero. That would likely be pretty close.
I appreciate you showing us this tool. I have struggled and fought with why there is so much variance using a comparator and all I can up with is like you, comparators aren't the best method due to inconsistencies in brass that are not something we really have any control over. Ordering this one ASAP as I am in agreement shoulder to ogive is not on more precise, it's way more consistent.
Comparators are very accurate and repeatable. If you are measure bullet seat length and getting different number it might be because your press is pressing on a different spot than your comparator does.
Hi John, Do you find that the comparator gives you different readings when the insert rotates inside the tool? I noticed that, while measuring a bunch of cartridges after bullet seating, the comparator's zero is showing a reading within zero to 1.5 tho. This is due to the insert rotating slowly when inserting many cartridges, one at a time. When I deliberately rotate the inserted cartridge to rotate the insert, I get up to 2 tho. of an inch maximum variation. I love the tool for ease of use, but 2 tho is a bit much. I would be comfortable with 1 tho. I also noticed that the insert is made of very soft metal, and the gauge has started to indent the insert at the point of contact, which could be a contributing factor to the variation in readings (since the gauge stem cannot be perfectly centered on the insert , rotating the insert will move the stem up and down on the indentation). Curious if you have similar experiences with the tool.
Yeah that's a valid question. As things go I'm always evaluating new tools and some I keep and some I move on if for no other reason than I like testing tools. The tool itself is solid and 100% does the job as stated. But I do currently use the SAC Comparators simply because I'm usually using my calipers for others things as well like measuring shoulder bump and other stuff so have the same base tool just made a little more sense in this case. I still stand by the tool and recommend it when people ask because we all have different situations that cause us to use one tool or another.
I have used this now for about 400 rounds, Berger 155.5 in Lapua .308 brass, annealed, FL sizing on my Warner die. Set back .002 - how much do you think seat depth inside the case affects ES ? Does .005 change in seat depth create pressure variations in loads? Ive loaded to .441 (the number on the Accuracy one that puts my STO where I want it to me) on my Micrometer Whidden , and measure each round, any above that number , like .445 for example , I would change the micrometer .004 to get it to .441 re-seat , check it and its at .441- so Ive moved the bullet back into the case .004- what effect does this have on ES? Is .005 total spread over 20 rounds effect ES? I’m picturing the different ogive variations and know that due to those needing to be shoulder to ogive consistent , the bullet gets seated deeper or shallower in the case to make that measurement the same, like .441 for example.
John, I purchased the gauge but I find that there are inconsistencies between the two ways to measure. My question, concern, is that you are seating your bullets based on base to ogive but then checking the results by measuring SHOULDER to ogive. It seems like you are mixing apples and oranges. You indicated that you sort your finished rounds from low to high on the AI gauge. I am guessing that you also sort your bullets based on seating pressure on the hydro press. That is a lot of sorting?
After seeing this tool and how it measures, which is a more accurate way to measure distance to or in the lands, I was thinking that it would be great to have some way to seat the bullet from the get go in relation to the case shoulder to ogive and adjustable with a micrometer and set up with an indicator as part of it. Have your cake and eat it too. Maybe Accuracy One is working on it now.
Hi John. Neat tool and I can see how nice that would be. Here is a question for you. Since all bullet seaters I know of are based off the bottom of the case being the “stop”, so to speak, as the bullet is pushed into it aren’t we mixing apples and oranges? If the bump varies any or there is more spring back in some cases wouldn’t that also throw it off?
Hello and let me try to answer it based on conversations I’ve had with Curt. His contention is that in all the testing he’s done, when the firing pin hits the primer it technically pushes the entire round forward causing the shoulder to hit the front of the chamber before the internal explosion even occurs. As a result having a consistent measurement from the shoulder to an arbitrary ogive point would create a more consistent release in terms of distance to the lands. Given his experience in the field and the other tools that he has Created I am inclined to trust his findings as I know he spent quite a bit of time developing this tool. I’m not saying that everybody will agree with what is happening internally but I can at least tell you on paper that I have seen some measure of decreased group size since measuring them this way.
F-Class John I totally understand what he has said and I do agree that is what happens. That said I don’t believe that his tool is going to change anything unless the bullet seating die also is based off the shoulder, not off the base of the cartridge stopped by the ram. Does that make sense?
@@mln19631 I know what you're saying and all I can add is that his contention is that the BTO more or less doesn't matter as long as the STO is consistent. Sure we want the BTO to be constant as well but shoulders are move a little more or less compared to the next so you can have perfect BTO out of your seating die but still have variance with this tool. The tool simply lets you see what different even when you're die is seating perfect BTO. That said it may not be for everyone or a step everyone wants to go through and I understand and respect that.
This is where I am getting hung up as well. The reasoning for measuring STO makes sense as to why it would be preferred. Now the question becomes; how do you do your bullet seating in order to maintain a consistent STO? Since the actual process of bullet seating references off the base, it would seem that this tool would really only be useful for sorting your loaded ammo into groups based on STO measurements. This tool doesn't really tell you how consistent your bullet seating is generally so much as it tells you how consistent your full length sizing is.
Damn theee F-class John for making me spend more.. :) :) First it was the accuracy one concentricity gauge..... "its awesome" Now this that I am going to mount up onto my inline base behind my coax....
@@FClassJohn you mention in a vid that you have a 21st century neck turner.. It has my attention as it can be turned into a trimmer also.. have not neck turned so kind of a newb on the topic..
Hi John, Looks like a great tool. If you’re final seating on an arbor, when would you incorporate this into your reloading? Local matches only where your seating on the Dillon?
I think for that situation you'd see it incorporated at the end either way since you'd be looking to keep equal seated rounds together. Now the reality is that you may not use the tool every time if you're finding the consistency you're looking for on a regular basis.
John, great video. Will be adding to my kit. Out of curiousity, what level of seating depth accuracy do you expect in your STO or CBTO measurement for your competition ammo? +/- how much?
@@FClassJohn I've always believe variation is your enemy, but have you actually experienced a repeatable change in accuracy with .002 to .003 of seating variation? While you strive for .001 or less for your match ammo I suspect the rifle's precision build has a great deal to do with this level of precision in terms of round to round uniformity and downrange accuracy and repeatability. While round to round uniformity will result in more accurate downrange performance, I suspect this is probably excessive in a majority of shooters rifles with the exception of a custom built precision rig such as yours. And no, I'm not being critical at all! I'm always impressed with the level of precision and passion your exercise each time. I've learned a lot and enjoy listening to you and what you've shared to date! Bob
@@SimpleLife1971 In reality no, if you're in your seating depth node then being off a little here and there won't honestly hurt you. For that matter the same can be said of powder. BUT, if I have the ability to achieve it, AND I have the ability to measure it AND it doesn't significantly impact me in terms of time or effort vs. reward then I'll do it. So in this case, I have a seating die that is a little more expensive than normal, on a press that is on the expensive side BUT I don't ever have to wonder if my seating depth is consistent. One less thing in my mind when a shot goes bad for some reason.
@@FClassJohn " if I have the ability to achieve it, AND I have the ability to measure it AND it doesn't significantly impact me in terms of time or effort vs. reward then I'll do it." Absolutely, I'm right there with you!
Sorry John, You lost me at the 6:30 mark! I had to go to the Accuracy one site and order one. I've been looking for something like this for sooo long! Is there anything worth watching in the last 2 minutes? 😄
Very interesting. By measuring from datum to ogive, case headspace variation can be nullified by sorting. Since the case datum/ chamber datum point is the true position of the cartridge due to firing pin hammer from where the bullet ogive position begins in the chamber, the measurement that this gauge derives appears to me to be the most important & repeatable. Indeed, for some loads, this gauge may return some significant improvements on target. Regards.....Rotas
@@FClassJohn Well, I'm hoping it does because that was the gist of my comment. Unless the reloader has a custom seating die, that datum to ogive gage is the way to go. It appears to me that the datum to ogive gage is the actual proper way that we should be measuring. I'm getting one for sure. I've already been seating my cartridges with the datum of the case hard against the datum of the seater, I just need the gage to verify.
I was thinking... if I may... if you had a belleville washer (cupped spring) under the base, of a strength a bit more than your maximum expected seating pressure, it could hold the shoulder into a "shoulder stop", giving you that reference, so that the spring could accommodate cartridge brass overall length variation, thus the seating device would be seating with the shoulder as a true datum, and, if seating pressure is too high, the spring would flex, and the seating *depth* would be "short" so that you could catch this error, if you do not have a pressure gauge for seating pressure... "just a thought"
@@lohikarhu734 Yes, I catch your drift. Yes, I do use a seating force gauge to seat all the projectiles. My comment was primarily focused on the seating depth with reference to the shoulder datum whilst actually seating. Once I set the neck ID"s, it sort of is what it is. It varies a little from case to case but, not a lot. 4 to 5 Lbs +/- at most. I've yet to confirm this but, my theory is that absolute consistency of seating pressures aren't the mechanism perse. I think it's more to do with the seating pressure being within or under a certain maximum limit which, is set by the pressure the primer detonation exerts upon the powder column which pushes the bullet into the lands before the main charge conflagrates. I believe this is the driving mechanism for consistent velocities. Bullet seating depth seems to be the major influence on barrel timing but, I've no idea how.
Just trying to think this through. The ejector will push the base of the case away from the bolt face when chambered. Pushing the shoulder into the front of the chamber. Therefore making the shoulder the more accurate method of measuring seating depth? Someone correct me if I'm completely off base here.
What would the order of operations be using this gauge in conjunction with the L.E. Wilson Case Gauge Depth Micrometer shown in a previous Video? Or, would you go with this as the primary seating depth verification, with a pass/fail on a normal case gauge? Or am I waaaay off? I'm fairly green to the process so any insight is appreciated.
The Wilson gauge is for checking your sizing (more specifically your shoulder bump) and this one is for bullet seating depth. Two totally different functions. As far as order goes, you have to size brass before seating a bullet so you’d use the Wilson first and then ultimately the Accuracy One at the end.
So I guess here's the best way I can explain why I have started do it. If I measure BTO then I get a very consistent number, which is admittedly all I cared about in the past. BUT I have now taken the next step of running the ammo through this gauge in hopes of putting equal distanced STO pieces together. For the little work it takes I feel it's one more thing I can do to ensure I have ammo that is more likely to shoot the same next to each other. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe it's not worth for some but I'm finding just a little more consistency shot to shot after doing it.
how does it measure different size calibers with only one tool beings some calibers have different shoulder angles or does that matter it just measures wherever the shoulder hits the tool
Exactly. It's just about repeatability and it doesn't matter where it hits the shoulder as long as it does it repeatedly (which it does). Same thing goes for where it hits the ogive.
@@FClassJohn Ok thanks. Projectiles seat alot nicer with some lube after wet tumbling, but I've never done it. I have just relied on overspray from Oneshot hitting the inside of necks.
Yeah I know it seems contrary. Ogive is actually a long measurement along the curve of the bullet and not a singular point. This gauge will allow an arbitrary point along the ogive to make contact for any given caliber and make for a repeatable, measurable point.
F-Class John I think I’m following. So it’s kinda measuring a fixed ogive (kinda like a datum line) it’s not the actual ogive of that particular bullet.
@@linemen71 Yeah and that's really how the Hornady does it to. Think about the fact that everyone uses a single 7mm Hornady comparator insert whether they shoot a 180 gr or a 197gr from any number of brands. The ogive is a big area and all that really matters is that any given tool allows for a repeatable way to measure along it. Does that help?
I guess you could conceivably do that. The idea would be to use the sorting program of the Sorteez with the comparator to sort. I'm just not sure if it would gain you anything in this particular case unless you were sorting a lot of finished rounds. But either way it's a great out of the box thought, I like it.
@@FClassJohn Thanks for the quick response. I was initially thiking it is conceivable that the same gauge would work with both Accuracy One tools. Then I thought maybe a little money could be saved by using the Sorteez gauge, even if the data app wasn’t used. I could get the Sorteez and one Accuracy One tool without the gauge. If it didn’t work, the get the second Accuracy One with a gauge! Thanks again and I enjoy your videos.
I've used several tools all with different levels of success. By far the Sorteez that I reviewed last year (see my older videos) was the best for me. That being said I haven't sorted bullets in a while but now that I'm shooting 180 Hybrids again I will start.
I wonder if the same digital gauge will work for both the primer seating and seating depth setups...? Maybe a less expensive way to get both, use the same gauge.
SO HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE THIS TO THE CALIPERS AND A SHORT ACTIONS KIT…. I HAVE ALWAYS USED THE HORNY COMP SET WITH THEIR ANVIL ON THE FIXED END OF MY CALIPER MOUNTED IN A DRILL PRESS VISE…MOUNTED TO MY BENCH. SLIDE THE “LIVE” END OF THE CALIPER DOWN ON THE BULLET WITH THE HORNY PART. WAS JUST FONNA UPGRADE TO THE SAC TOOLS…BUT THIS HAS ME RECONSIDERING YOUR THOUGHTS?
@@85ZERO17 I have all three of the kits you mention and to be fair they all do a good job. It sounds like you have a good system and I think you'd find the SAC is just like the Hornady but better made for sure. The A1 gauge is totally different and for me it's much faster, easier and repeatable than caliper based ones. But it really comes down to the user and what works for them.
I'm sorry but they're not stupid for me. I prefer to keep my hand oils off my tools and the grime and other stuff off my hands. Just my personal preference and I understand it's not for everyone.
I wanted to give a quick update and let everyone know that I was incorrect and that it will only go up to 30 caliber bullets. He may offer something for larger calibers in the future which is why I was originally confused.
I have no problem measuring with the Hornady bullet comparator tool verses the dial gauge set up. If the measurements come out different with the Hornady comparator then it's not being used right. I check the bullets themselves to make sure they measure at the ogive to the base, the same. If the Hornady comparator measures differently, then that's where it's being inconsistent. My COAL are consistent with the comparator.
I just started to sort my bullets prior to loading with my comparator. ( Im new to precision rifle loading) huge difference in my final seating measurements. Much more consistent, much happier while at my bench. Now, to fix my eyesight....👍
G'day John, you got me to thinking about that new seating depth comparator. Anyhow, I went through all the implications I could think of &, came up with a modified bullet seating method to take full advantage of that gauge & seating depth repeatability improvements.
All the bullet seating dies available are set up & physically use the rim/base of the case with no reference to the datum. If we could seat with reference to the datum, we could eliminate the variance of the datum point. This can in fact be achieved with the use of L.E Wilson dies by 1) placing a thin washer (1mm) in the base cap of the die or 2) cutting a relief of 5mm width x 1mm depth in the base cap of the die. Using either of these 2 methods will cause the die to rest upon the case which, forces the datum of the case hard against the datum of the die. Since the datum of the die is a fixed point in relation to the seating stem, the case datum will then be fixed with reference to the stem allowing the cartridge base to float. Since we know that when the firing pin strikes the primer, the cartridge is hammered hard against the datum of the chamber &, where initial bullet release takes place, it is logical to measure & seat with reference to the case datum.
My eldest Son is a fitter & turner & I have given him one of my Wilson die base to modify with reference to # 2 mentioned above.
Thought I'd mention this in the hope that you may feel this seating method worth testing & trialling in your F-class rifles. I will of course be testing this however, I don't have the depth comparator gauge yet or, a custom rifle to verify the efficacy.
I hope you realise that, this could be a turning point in the bullet seating method for F-class & bench rest shooters.
Although I am the brains, you will be the 1st to utilise this new method thus, making you more betterer than Eric Cortina & even Lou Murdica.
Now I know you'll do it.
Kind Regards..........Rotas
I'll definitely give it some thought when I get back from Nationals, thanks for the great thought and suggestions.
If your die is pressing the shoulder to base, then measuring from base to ogive should be the same as measuring shoulder to ogive. However, it could change depending how much die wax there was on the shoulder while pressing. A variable to consider.
My only concern is variation between this tool and your seating die. The seating die is going to contact the bullet in a different spot than the comparator. You may have a batch of bullets that have zero variation where your seater touches them, but this touches the bullet further up the ogive, and could show different variation.
I have found the same to be true. From what I've observed is that neither COAL or CBTO measurements are exactly precise. What I have found is that if you measure the distance from bullet base to seating die POI, you get constant measurements evert single time. This means, in my understanding, that the bullet is then seated into the case exacty the same depth which allows for consistant start-up pressure, more consistant powder ignition and ultimately, less ES.
My recent test showed that I only had an 0.004 variance in ogive measurements, which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. It's about the same as 3 hair strands (yes, I physically conducted that test on myself😂). As Eric Cortina rightfully said, if you're clearing the lands by 0.020", you're not in jam. So by my thought, 0.004" variance from longest to shortest ogive measurement really doesn't matter. You're clearing the lands.
However, I will say that bullet sorting does have it's place because you find a median in every batch with a couple of odds balls here and there. So I (OCD as I am) will still sort bullets according to bullet OAL and bullet BTO measurements because I shoot from a magazine shorter than my chamber length. I determine my internal seating depth by taking the longest bullet OAL and adding the length of my cartridge case to get a max. length, then deduct the max. length available from my magazine. Then I have my starting depth. I then seat all my bullets at that point. I then sort all bullets with the same ogive measurements and then shoot the odd balls out in ladder tests or as barrel foulers and keep the median as my "go-to" rounds.
I am then able to have consistant internal seating depths as well as consistant CBTO measurements with the lowest possible ES and SD as I can get. By that means, I eliminate all possibilities for the shooter (me😂) to blame the gun or the ammo for his 10" groups at a 100 yards😂😂 (jokes)
John I mounted accuracy one bullet seater to side of my stand for zero press. Works great!
That’s awesome!
For sorting bullets or setting up brass, you need the caliper-based tools. For checking loaded ammo, this one is the way to go! So I say, get them both. But not the crappy Hornady comparators, get quality tools like the Short Action Customs comparator set or the Forster Datum Dial.
Love all of your videos thank you for your timeout this one was just a bit rushed I felt.I ALMOST got it.Would love to see a rearview in the future with a slower more deliberate approach.........Please.
I don't get it. If it does in fact measure from the ogive, how can the indicator tip *not* be caliber specific? It must just have an arbitrary size opening which contacts the bullet *somewhere* and the indicator reading would be relative to that same spot on the reference bullet that was used to zero. That would likely be pretty close.
I appreciate you showing us this tool. I have struggled and fought with why there is so much variance using a comparator and all I can up with is like you, comparators aren't the best method due to inconsistencies in brass that are not something we really have any control over. Ordering this one ASAP as I am in agreement shoulder to ogive is not on more precise, it's way more consistent.
Comparators are very accurate and repeatable. If you are measure bullet seat length and getting different number it might be because your press is pressing on a different spot than your comparator does.
Great vid! This begs the question now though.... How do we seat bullets referencing the shoulder instead of the base??🤔
will be ordering one. like this a lot and seems like it would work better for everything other than rimmed cases.
Sounds good. Hope you like it.
sounds like the shoulder to ogive is a more consistent measurement. I thought about case base variances.
You are correct, Accuracy One are the best tools you can Buy Period.
Without a doubt.
Looks to be a more accurate method of measurement! Ordered one today! Thanks John!
Awesome, hope you like it as much as I do.
What do they cost?
Hi John, Do you find that the comparator gives you different readings when the insert rotates inside the tool? I noticed that, while measuring a bunch of cartridges after bullet seating, the comparator's zero is showing a reading within zero to 1.5 tho. This is due to the insert rotating slowly when inserting many cartridges, one at a time. When I deliberately rotate the inserted cartridge to rotate the insert, I get up to 2 tho. of an inch maximum variation. I love the tool for ease of use, but 2 tho is a bit much. I would be comfortable with 1 tho. I also noticed that the insert is made of very soft metal, and the gauge has started to indent the insert at the point of contact, which could be a contributing factor to the variation in readings (since the gauge stem cannot be perfectly centered on the insert , rotating the insert will move the stem up and down on the indentation). Curious if you have similar experiences with the tool.
I’ll have to ad this to my “ask for forgiveness” list.
Add
Do you still use this tool? Maybe an update video? I really want one but I need more details just want to see if it’s a short term tool or long
Yeah that's a valid question. As things go I'm always evaluating new tools and some I keep and some I move on if for no other reason than I like testing tools. The tool itself is solid and 100% does the job as stated. But I do currently use the SAC Comparators simply because I'm usually using my calipers for others things as well like measuring shoulder bump and other stuff so have the same base tool just made a little more sense in this case. I still stand by the tool and recommend it when people ask because we all have different situations that cause us to use one tool or another.
I have used this now for about 400 rounds, Berger 155.5 in Lapua .308 brass, annealed, FL sizing on my Warner die. Set back .002 - how much do you think seat depth inside the case affects ES ? Does .005 change in seat depth create pressure variations in loads? Ive loaded to .441 (the number on the Accuracy one that puts my STO where I want it to me) on my Micrometer Whidden , and measure each round, any above that number , like .445 for example , I would change the micrometer .004 to get it to .441 re-seat , check it and its at .441- so Ive moved the bullet back into the case .004- what effect does this have on ES? Is .005 total spread over 20 rounds effect ES? I’m picturing the different ogive variations and know that due to those needing to be shoulder to ogive consistent , the bullet gets seated deeper or shallower in the case to make that measurement the same, like .441 for example.
John, I purchased the gauge but I find that there are inconsistencies between the two ways to measure. My question, concern, is that you are seating your bullets based on base to ogive but then checking the results by measuring SHOULDER to ogive. It seems like you are mixing apples and oranges. You indicated that you sort your finished rounds from low to high on the AI gauge. I am guessing that you also sort your bullets based on seating pressure on the hydro press. That is a lot of sorting?
After seeing this tool and how it measures, which is a more accurate way to measure distance to or in the lands, I was thinking that it would be great to have some way to seat the bullet from the get go in relation to the case shoulder to ogive and adjustable with a micrometer and set up with an indicator as part of it. Have your cake and eat it too. Maybe Accuracy One is working on it now.
I’m honestly not sure but that would be pretty cool I agree.
Hi John. Neat tool and I can see how nice that would be. Here is a question for you. Since all bullet seaters I know of are based off the bottom of the case being the “stop”, so to speak, as the bullet is pushed into it aren’t we mixing apples and oranges? If the bump varies any or there is more spring back in some cases wouldn’t that also throw it off?
Hello and let me try to answer it based on conversations I’ve had with Curt. His contention is that in all the testing he’s done, when the firing pin hits the primer it technically pushes the entire round forward causing the shoulder to hit the front of the chamber before the internal explosion even occurs. As a result having a consistent measurement from the shoulder to an arbitrary ogive point would create a more consistent release in terms of distance to the lands. Given his experience in the field and the other tools that he has Created I am inclined to trust his findings as I know he spent quite a bit of time developing this tool. I’m not saying that everybody will agree with what is happening internally but I can at least tell you on paper that I have seen some measure of decreased group size since measuring them this way.
F-Class John I totally understand what he has said and I do agree that is what happens. That said I don’t believe that his tool is going to change anything unless the bullet seating die also is based off the shoulder, not off the base of the cartridge stopped by the ram. Does that make sense?
@@mln19631 I know what you're saying and all I can add is that his contention is that the BTO more or less doesn't matter as long as the STO is consistent. Sure we want the BTO to be constant as well but shoulders are move a little more or less compared to the next so you can have perfect BTO out of your seating die but still have variance with this tool. The tool simply lets you see what different even when you're die is seating perfect BTO. That said it may not be for everyone or a step everyone wants to go through and I understand and respect that.
F-Class John maybe he has a new bullet seating die on the way? LOL
This is where I am getting hung up as well. The reasoning for measuring STO makes sense as to why it would be preferred. Now the question becomes; how do you do your bullet seating in order to maintain a consistent STO? Since the actual process of bullet seating references off the base, it would seem that this tool would really only be useful for sorting your loaded ammo into groups based on STO measurements. This tool doesn't really tell you how consistent your bullet seating is generally so much as it tells you how consistent your full length sizing is.
Damn theee F-class John for making me spend more.. :) :)
First it was the accuracy one concentricity gauge..... "its awesome"
Now this that I am going to mount up onto my inline base behind my coax....
Glad you like the toys. I'm a sucker for good ones too.
@@FClassJohn you mention in a vid that you have a 21st century neck turner.. It has my attention as it can be turned into a trimmer also..
have not neck turned so kind of a newb on the topic..
@@mikeq7096 Yeah they started making a kit for it but I haven't used it. Sorry I can't be more help.
Hi John,
Looks like a great tool. If you’re final seating on an arbor, when would you incorporate this into your reloading? Local matches only where your seating on the Dillon?
I think for that situation you'd see it incorporated at the end either way since you'd be looking to keep equal seated rounds together. Now the reality is that you may not use the tool every time if you're finding the consistency you're looking for on a regular basis.
Dammit...now I need this.
I do love nice toys.
John, great video. Will be adding to my kit. Out of curiousity, what level of seating depth accuracy do you expect in your STO or CBTO measurement for your competition ammo? +/- how much?
I strive for .001" or less for my match ammo.
@@FClassJohn Thank you.
@@FClassJohn I've always believe variation is your enemy, but have you actually experienced a repeatable change in accuracy with .002 to .003 of seating variation?
While you strive for .001 or less for your match ammo I suspect the rifle's precision build has a great deal to do with this level of precision in terms of round to round uniformity and downrange accuracy and repeatability.
While round to round uniformity will result in more accurate downrange performance, I suspect this is probably excessive in a majority of shooters rifles with the exception of a custom built precision rig such as yours.
And no, I'm not being critical at all! I'm always impressed with the level of precision and passion your exercise each time. I've learned a lot and enjoy listening to you and what you've shared to date!
Bob
@@SimpleLife1971 In reality no, if you're in your seating depth node then being off a little here and there won't honestly hurt you. For that matter the same can be said of powder. BUT, if I have the ability to achieve it, AND I have the ability to measure it AND it doesn't significantly impact me in terms of time or effort vs. reward then I'll do it. So in this case, I have a seating die that is a little more expensive than normal, on a press that is on the expensive side BUT I don't ever have to wonder if my seating depth is consistent. One less thing in my mind when a shot goes bad for some reason.
@@FClassJohn " if I have the ability to achieve it, AND I have the ability to measure it AND it doesn't significantly impact me in terms of time or effort vs. reward then I'll do it."
Absolutely, I'm right there with you!
Sorry John,
You lost me at the 6:30 mark!
I had to go to the Accuracy one site and order one. I've been looking for something like this for sooo long!
Is there anything worth watching in the last 2 minutes? 😄
Glad you finally found what you needed in this tool.
Very interesting. By measuring from datum to ogive, case headspace variation can be nullified by sorting.
Since the case datum/ chamber datum point is the true position of the cartridge due to firing pin hammer from where the bullet ogive position begins in the chamber, the measurement that this gauge derives appears to me to be the most important & repeatable.
Indeed, for some loads, this gauge may return some significant improvements on target.
Regards.....Rotas
I'm still finding that it helps.
@@FClassJohn Well, I'm hoping it does because that was the gist of my comment.
Unless the reloader has a custom seating die, that datum to ogive gage is the way to go. It appears to me that the datum to ogive gage is the actual proper way that we should be measuring.
I'm getting one for sure. I've already been seating my cartridges with the datum of the case hard against the datum of the seater, I just need the gage to verify.
@@rotasaustralis Yeah you totally get it!!
I was thinking... if I may... if you had a belleville washer (cupped spring) under the base,
of a strength a bit more than your maximum expected seating pressure,
it could hold the shoulder into a "shoulder stop", giving you that reference,
so that the spring could accommodate cartridge brass overall length variation,
thus the seating device would be seating with the shoulder as a true datum, and,
if seating pressure is too high, the spring would flex, and the seating *depth* would be "short"
so that you could catch this error, if you do not have a pressure gauge for seating pressure...
"just a thought"
@@lohikarhu734 Yes, I catch your drift. Yes, I do use a seating force gauge to seat all the projectiles. My comment was primarily focused on the seating depth with reference to the shoulder datum whilst actually seating. Once I set the neck ID"s, it sort of is what it is. It varies a little from case to case but, not a lot. 4 to 5 Lbs +/- at most.
I've yet to confirm this but, my theory is that absolute consistency of seating pressures aren't the mechanism perse. I think it's more to do with the seating pressure being within or under a certain maximum limit which, is set by the pressure the primer detonation exerts upon the powder column which pushes the bullet into the lands before the main charge conflagrates. I believe this is the driving mechanism for consistent velocities. Bullet seating depth seems to be the major influence on barrel timing but, I've no idea how.
Does the accuracy one also measure shoulder bump after a case has been size or is it specifically for loaded rounds?
Pretty neat tool. Could it be somehow mounted in the last station on a progressive press?
Probably not. Because base to shoulder can vary it would render the tool inaccurate as a result. But not that would be cool if you could.
I love this tool!
Thanks john. Now I understand
My pleasure.
Is the Accuracy One measuring off the ogive or the tip?
It measures off the ogive.
Just trying to think this through. The ejector will push the base of the case away from the bolt face when chambered. Pushing the shoulder into the front of the chamber. Therefore making the shoulder the more accurate method of measuring seating depth?
Someone correct me if I'm completely off base here.
Lots of match rifles have no ejector plug. My Barnard Mod. P doesnt .
What would the order of operations be using this gauge in conjunction with the L.E. Wilson Case Gauge Depth Micrometer shown in a previous Video? Or, would you go with this as the primary seating depth verification, with a pass/fail on a normal case gauge? Or am I waaaay off? I'm fairly green to the process so any insight is appreciated.
The Wilson gauge is for checking your sizing (more specifically your shoulder bump) and this one is for bullet seating depth. Two totally different functions. As far as order goes, you have to size brass before seating a bullet so you’d use the Wilson first and then ultimately the Accuracy One at the end.
@@FClassJohn so buy all the things essentially. Thanks for the reply!
I a bit confused. Ok so you sorted your 180 rounds. You shot all if them at the match. What good did it do forvyountonsort them. Help me here
So I guess here's the best way I can explain why I have started do it. If I measure BTO then I get a very consistent number, which is admittedly all I cared about in the past. BUT I have now taken the next step of running the ammo through this gauge in hopes of putting equal distanced STO pieces together. For the little work it takes I feel it's one more thing I can do to ensure I have ammo that is more likely to shoot the same next to each other. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe it's not worth for some but I'm finding just a little more consistency shot to shot after doing it.
Just ordered. What size bolt do I need for the stand? 1/4”?
Yeah I think it's just a 1/4" that I use but I honestly don't remember.
how does it measure different size calibers with only one tool beings some calibers have different shoulder angles or does that matter it just measures wherever the shoulder hits the tool
Exactly. It's just about repeatability and it doesn't matter where it hits the shoulder as long as it does it repeatedly (which it does). Same thing goes for where it hits the ogive.
Hey mate. Do you use any lube in the case necks prior to seating?
No I don’t. I’ve gone back and forth using it but am inconclusive on it as of right now.
@@FClassJohn Ok thanks. Projectiles seat alot nicer with some lube after wet tumbling, but I've never done it. I have just relied on overspray from Oneshot hitting the inside of necks.
Wait, shoulder to ogive? Or shoulder to tip of the bullet?
How can it do ogive without programming the diameter of bullet?
Yeah I know it seems contrary. Ogive is actually a long measurement along the curve of the bullet and not a singular point. This gauge will allow an arbitrary point along the ogive to make contact for any given caliber and make for a repeatable, measurable point.
F-Class John I think I’m following. So it’s kinda measuring a fixed ogive (kinda like a datum line) it’s not the actual ogive of that particular bullet.
@@linemen71 Yeah and that's really how the Hornady does it to. Think about the fact that everyone uses a single 7mm Hornady comparator insert whether they shoot a 180 gr or a 197gr from any number of brands. The ogive is a big area and all that really matters is that any given tool allows for a repeatable way to measure along it. Does that help?
Could you use this comparator and the Accuracy One primer gauge on the Sorteez gauge?
I guess you could conceivably do that. The idea would be to use the sorting program of the Sorteez with the comparator to sort. I'm just not sure if it would gain you anything in this particular case unless you were sorting a lot of finished rounds. But either way it's a great out of the box thought, I like it.
@@FClassJohn Thanks for the quick response. I was initially thiking it is conceivable that the same gauge would work with both Accuracy One tools. Then I thought maybe a little money could be saved by using the Sorteez gauge, even if the data app wasn’t used. I could get the Sorteez and one Accuracy One tool without the gauge. If it didn’t work, the get the second Accuracy One with a gauge! Thanks again and I enjoy your videos.
Cool tool.
Yeah it is.
What do you use to measure and sort projectiles?
I've used several tools all with different levels of success. By far the Sorteez that I reviewed last year (see my older videos) was the best for me. That being said I haven't sorted bullets in a while but now that I'm shooting 180 Hybrids again I will start.
I ordered the one from accuracy one
@@morrow275 That one is great too and works like the Sorteez just without the app interface. I have no doubt you'll love it.
I like this
I wonder if the same digital gauge will work for both the primer seating and seating depth setups...?
Maybe a less expensive way to get both, use the same gauge.
Yeah I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. It’s the same gauge.
@@FClassJohni asked that question when I ordered mine and was told yes works for both tools.
I will not work on a 6ppc case either.
ARE YOU STILL USING THIS
absolutely.
SO HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE THIS TO THE CALIPERS AND A SHORT ACTIONS KIT….
I HAVE ALWAYS USED THE HORNY COMP SET WITH THEIR ANVIL ON THE FIXED END OF MY CALIPER MOUNTED IN A DRILL PRESS VISE…MOUNTED TO MY BENCH. SLIDE THE “LIVE” END OF THE CALIPER DOWN ON THE BULLET WITH THE HORNY PART. WAS JUST FONNA UPGRADE TO THE SAC TOOLS…BUT THIS HAS ME RECONSIDERING
YOUR THOUGHTS?
@@85ZERO17 I have all three of the kits you mention and to be fair they all do a good job. It sounds like you have a good system and I think you'd find the SAC is just like the Hornady but better made for sure. The A1 gauge is totally different and for me it's much faster, easier and repeatable than caliper based ones. But it really comes down to the user and what works for them.
Why in the hell do you wear those stupid gloves all the time?
I'm sorry but they're not stupid for me. I prefer to keep my hand oils off my tools and the grime and other stuff off my hands. Just my personal preference and I understand it's not for everyone.